ACN 115 722 248 Pty Ltd v Milligan

ACN 115 722 248 Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought permission to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of a Judge of that Court. The Judge had refused to grant permission to appeal against a decision of a Judge of the District Court of South Australia. The District Court Judge had, in turn, refused permission to appeal against a decision of a District Court Master. The Master had struck out the applicant's Statement of Claim.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether permission to appeal should be granted against the decision of the Supreme Court Judge who had refused permission to appeal against the District Court Judge's decision, which itself refused permission to appeal against the Master's order striking out the applicant's Statement of Claim. This involved a consideration of the principles governing appeals by leave against interlocutory orders in South Australia.

The Full Court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 1999 (SA) and the District Court Civil Rules 2005 (SA), particularly those relating to appeals by leave. The Court noted that appeals against interlocutory decisions generally require leave, and that the applicant bore the onus of demonstrating that the appeal had a real prospect of success or that there was some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The Court examined the history of the proceedings and the reasons given by the lower courts for refusing permission to appeal at each stage.

The Full Court ultimately refused the application for permission to appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Master's decision to strike out the Statement of Claim was affected by error, nor had it established that the subsequent refusals of permission to appeal were erroneous. Consequently, there was no basis upon which to grant leave to appeal to the Full Court.